The history we learned in school was written by the winners !
The True history of war is written by its warriors.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Freedom in the North !

While the South has been label racist lets take a look at our wonderful neighbors to the north!

OHIOThe state had enacted Black Laws in 1804 and 1807 that compelled blacks entering the state to post bond of $500 guaranteeing good behavior and to produce a court paper as proof that they were free."No extensive effort was made to enforce the bond requirement" Likwack wrote, "until 1829, when the rapid increase of the Negro population alarmed Cincinnati. The city authorities announced that the Black Laws would be enforced and ordered Negroes to comply or leave within thirty days."Citizens of the city's "Little Africa" -- largely a ghetto of wooden shacks owned by whites -- appealed for a delay, and sent a delegation to Canada to try to find a place to settle there. But if the authorities were willing to offer more time, the Ohio mob was not, and whites in packs roamed through the black neighborhoods, burning and beating. The delegation came back from Upper Canada with the offer of a safe home from the governor. "Tell the Republicans on your side of the line that we royalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us you will be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of His Majesty's subjects."About half of the city's 2,200 blacks left, most of them apparently going to Canada. The proponents of strict enforcement of the Black Laws then discovered that they had driven off "the sober, honest, industrious, and useful portion of the colored population," which lessened "much of the moral restraint ... on the idle and indolent, as well as the profligate" among the rest

ConnecticutDiscrimination against free blacks was more severe in Connecticut than in other New England colonies. Their lives were strongly proscribed even before they became numerous. In 1690, the colony forbade blacks and Indians to be on the streets after 9 p.m. It also forbid black "servants" to wander beyond the limits of the towns or places where they belonged without a ticket or pass from their masters or the authorities. A law of 1708, citing frequent fights between slaves and whites, imposed a minimum penalty of 30 lashes on any black who disturbed the peace or who attempted to strike a white person. Even speech was subject to control. By a 1730 law, and black, Indian, or mulatto slave "who uttered or published, about any white person, words which would be actionable if uttered by a free white was, upon conviction before any one assistant or justice of the peace, to be whipped with forty lashes. As early as 1717, citizens of New London in a town meeting voted their objection to free blacks living in the town or owning land anywhere in the colony. That year, the colonial assembly passed a law in accordance with this sentiment, prohibiting free blacks or mulattoes from residing in any town in the colony. It also forbid them to buy land or go into business without the consent of the town. The provisions were retroactive, so that if any black person had managed to buy land, the deed was rendered void, and a black resident of a town, however long he had been there, was now subject to prosecution at the discretion of the selectmen.

PennsylvaniaPennsylvania laws forbid blacks from gathering in "tippling-houses," carrying arms, or assembling in companies. These, however, were loosely or unevenly enforced. But throughout Pennsylvania colony, the children of free blacks, without exception, were bound out by the local justices of the peace until age 24 (if male) or 21 (if female). All in all, the "free" blacks of colonial Pennsylvania led severely circumscribed lives; they had no control even over their own family arrangements, and they could be put back into servitude for "laziness" or petty crimes, at the mercy of the local authorities.

ILLINOIS, INDIANAThe legal history of the black codes in these two states is essentially similiar, and in fact Illinois simply continued Indiana's code when it organized as a territory.The new states that entered the union in the North after the gradual emancipation of northern slaves were just as concerned as the old ones with maintaining their racial purity. To do so, they turned to an old practice in the North: the exclusion law. Slaves could not be brought into the Northwest Territories, under the ordinance of 1787, but slaves already there remained in bondage. Once states began to emerge from the old territories, most of them explicitly barred blacks or permitted them only if they could prove their freedom and post bond. Ohio offered the first example, and those that followed her into the union followed her lead on race.Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation was passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.

9 comments:

What? No comments yet from those that deny Black Confederates ever existed or those who deny the Black Codes of these hypocrites claiming to be the beloved "emancipators"? "The truth will set you free", but these revisionists forgot what the truth and facts were long ago - unless they can be twisted to support their PC agenda! Keep standing for truth, David!

Yea, it’s kinda funny, when I post a satirical blog I have no shortage of Yankee bloggers posting a link to this blog calling me childish. But when I put up cold hard facts they seem to disappear. Oh well it is what it is! Be like a baseball umpire “ Call em like ya see em”

The standard reply from the anti Confederate bloggers is something along the lines of, "Well, yeah, there was racism in the north, nobody has denied that." And that's all. No discussion of the significance of it, no talk about how it affected black folks. Their point, their ONLY point, in painting how awful slavery was for black folks is to imply how demonic white Southerners were... They aren't interested in demonizing white northerners, so they brush it off....

I just saw this post. Interesting and you bring up a lot of valid points. The thing is, no one denies this though lots of people above seem vigilant that historians do. It's a been there, done that type of mindset in which we have pressed on from the issue. The difference comes when talking about the Civil War. In part because of the curiosity it arouses and due to it being the great adventure in the adolescence of our country. However, of the information you cited above there is not one date that happened during or post Civil War. The latest date mentioned is anti-immigration legislation in 1853 which is an entirely different conversation. Due to the Civil War however, the North shed the sin of slavery and took steps to do so even before that. Does that mean there were not other atrocities? No, and no one is saying that there are not. What is frustrating is when people attempt to address the situation of slavery in the South and it is usually countered with accusations of others instead of acceptance.

So to close with your opening statement, "While the South has been label racist lets take a look at our wonderful neighbors to the north!" Yes, in 1863 the developed the Emancipation Proclamation, in 1865 the 13th Amendment and so on.

Also / "What is frustrating is when people attempt to address the situation of slavery in the South and it is usually countered with accusations of others instead of acceptance"

You ain't never heard that horse hockey outta me, I have posted the facts about my family's involvement with slavery. But yes I also have countered with the north’s involvement but what’s wrong with that? I’m sick of the spotlight being focused on the south.As for the time lines for the Black Exclusionary Laws in the north, “The latest date mentioned is anti-immigration legislation in 1853 which is an entirely different conversation.” Well if the legislation ended in 1853 maybe so, or if the people who passed the legislation died in 1853 maybe so. But I think the mindset of the people who passed the legislation as well as the laws themselves were still in place in 1861. So I don’t think you can exclude the legislation from the total picture.

Connie says: "Rob, you've been indoctrinated with hatred for your region based on racism that exists everywhere but is promoted as Southern. I hope with time and age, you can overcome it." When have I ever stated that I hate my region? Never. You won't ever find that I have nor will I ever state it. You think that it is all about hate. Probably because all you see is hatred so don't project that onto others.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4124/jim_crow_in_the_north/

I stated above that I do not deny this nor does anyone else. "Thomas J. Sugrue, a professor of history and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, lays bare the difficulty blacks have had in the North from before the first black Great Migration in the ’20s to the present." I do love how you roll out the academic elite when it fits your purpose though.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/douglas0206.htm

The same is true with this source.

I'm not doing the rest of them. I can tell you personally that I have seen the "Sun Down" signs posted up personally. Sand Mountain Connie, you should know that area. But ultimately, you are entirely off base. This thread and the prior one was on Black Codes, not Jim Crow. Have a Dixie Day.

The spot light gets focused on the South because of people that constantly reject information and instead point to other atrocities in far off lands (the North). I am not putting you in the mold since you do post that information. I didn't exclude the legislation, if I excluded on slavery it would be because the law is about immigration and not slavery. The mindset of xenophobia would still be apparent though. The reason I exclude is because of the connection to the South in the Post-Civil War.